ISCTE – University Institute of Lisbon
FOLLOW-UP EVALUATION REPORT
August 2016
Team:
Jürgen Kohler, Chair
Melanie Gut
Ivan Ostrovsky
Christina Rozsnyai, Team Coordinator
Institutional Evaluation Programme/ ISCTE–IUL/ August 2016
2
Contents
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3
2. General impressions .................................................................................................... 6
3. Governance and management...........................................................................7
4. Teaching and learning ............................................................................................... 10
5. Research ...................................................................................................................... 12
6. Service to society..............................................................................................13
7. Internationalisation ................................................................................................... 13
8. Quality assurance....................................................................................................... 14
9. Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 15
Institutional Evaluation Programme/ ISCTE–IUL/ August 2016
3
1. Introduction
This report is the result of a follow-up evaluation of ISCTE – Instituto Universitário de Lisboa
(ISCTE-IUL). The European University Association’s (EUA) Institutional Evaluation Programme
(IEP) originally evaluated ISCTE-IUL in 2013, with the report submitted to the University in July
2013. In 2015 the university subsequently requested that IEP carry out a follow-up evaluation.
1.1 Institutional Evaluation Programme and follow-up evaluation process
IEP is an independent membership service of the EUA that offers evaluations to support the
participating institutions in the continuing development of their strategic management and
internal quality culture. IEP is a full member of the European Association for Quality Assurance
in Higher Education (ENQA) and is listed in the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher
Education (EQAR).
In line with the IEP philosophy as a whole, the follow-up process is a supportive one. There is
no prescribed procedure, and it is for the institution itself to set the agenda in the light of its
experiences since the original evaluation. The institution is expected to submit its own self-
evaluation report, which will describe the progress made, possibly indicating barriers to change.
The rationale is that the follow-up evaluation can assist the institution in evaluating the changes
that have been made since the original evaluation: What was the impact of the original
evaluation? What use has the institution made of the original evaluation report? How far has
it been able to address the issues raised in the report? The follow-up evaluation is also an
opportunity for the institution to take stock of its strategies for managing change in the context
of internal and external constraints and opportunities.
As with the original evaluation, the follow-up process is also guided by four key questions,
which are based on a “fitness for (and of) purpose” approach:
What is the institution trying to do?
How is the institution trying to do it?
How does the institution know it works?
How does the institution change in order to improve?
1.2 ISCTE-IUL’s profile
ISCTE-IUL is one of three universities in Portugal, alongside the universities of Porto and Aveiro,
with foundation status1. The arrangement, which places institutions under private law, confers
on them greater autonomy in their finances and governance than public universities. The legal
standing of foundation universities was not consolidated at the time of the first IEP review. In
2015 the government reconfirmed the foundation status. Given that foundation universities
1As reported by ISCTE, as well as on its website. Research produces varying numbers, likely due to the uncertain
categorisation of foundation universities.
Institutional Evaluation Programme/ ISCTE–IUL/ August 2016
4
have proven to be viable as higher education institutions and to meet societal needs, and,
although no decision has been made, the ISCTE-IUL leaders believe that t is now generally
accepted in Portugal, and other universities are adopting this status.
The status has allowed ISCTE-IUL to sharpen its profile on “innovation, quality,
internationalisation and development of an entrepreneurial culture. 2 The emphasis on
Master’s studies was increased between 2012 and 2015 from some 50% to 54% of students at
post-graduate level, including PhD studies. A new strategic plan for the period 2014-2017 was
produced taking into account the recommendations of the 2013 IEP evaluation. Motivated by
the 2013 evaluation report, ISCTE-IUL has begun to reorganise some of its units.
The formerly nine research centres were reduced to eight. An International Studies Research
Centre was established, incorporating the former Centre for African Studies. Research in history,
which had a separate centre, is now part of the Centre for Research and Studies in Sociology.
The former Adetti Research Centre was reorganised into ISTAR–IUL, the Information Sciences,
Technologies and Architecture Research Centre.
Research, as a major strategic area of ISCTE-IUL, has grown, with more internationally refereed
publications by university staff, international and national projects, and the establishment of
new research laboratories, such as Vitruvius FabLab for fabrication and innovation.
A possible reorganisation of schools is still under discussion. At the time of the team’s follow-
up visit, ISCTE-IUL continues to operate with 16 departments in its four schools: Social Sciences;
Sociology and Public Policy; Business; and Technology and Architecture. There are between one
and three research centres in each school.
Since 2013, the number of students at ISCTE-IUL has grown from 8 872 to 9 326. Academic staff
increased from 453 to 468, including 378 staff with PhDs, up from 346. While the general
population has been declining, ISCTE-IUL expects to increase its student numbers gradually
over the coming years, most of them in Master’s studies. In line with this trend, ISCTE-IUL
foresees and welcomes an increase of post-graduate students which, in relative terms, exceeds
the growth in numbers of undergraduate students.ISCTE-IUL has developed its infrastructure
in many ways during the past three years. To name a few examples, the number of study places
for individual and group work was increased and library hours have been extended. Courses
and programmes taught in English, e-learning, double degrees and joint programmes have
increased. The ICT infrastructure has been further integrated and developed.
As to the future, a major planned development is the extension of the campus into the newly
acquired adjacent property. This property will provide space for both a new, privately run hotel
and a sizeable school building. This new complex, with these two elements interacting, will
2 http://iscte-iul.pt/en/quem_somos/apresentacao.aspx
Institutional Evaluation Programme/ ISCTE–IUL/ August 2016
5
allow to expand current teaching fields in a strategic manner by focusing on the
interdisciplinary areas of tourism and hospitality.
1.3 The evaluation process
The self-evaluation process was undertaken by a seven-member self-evaluation group, four of
whom were also part of the 2013 group, thus ensuring consistency in the process. The group
was headed by the Vice-Rector for Institutional Innovation and Development and included the
vice-president of the student association. The compact, 25-page self-evaluation report, if not
analytical, responds factually to the recommendations in the 2013 IEP report. However, the
follow-up element of the quality assurance process helps institutions to go beyond responding
to recommendations and to identify and pro-actively meet new challenges. Therefore, the
evaluation team (hereinafter named the team) was pleased to observe during the site visit that
the 2013 recommendations have been discussed extensively within the university community
at all levels. The self-evaluation report is only one product of their input, and a number of
strategic actions, some of them described above and in the following sections of this report,
have been planned or achieved.
The self-evaluation report of ISCTE-IUL, together with ten appendices, was sent to the team in
May 2016. The visit of the team to Lisbon took place from 21 to 24 June. The team was able to
consult with a wide range of university representatives, including the rector, vice-rectors and
pro-rector, school and department directors, the representatives of various governance bodies,
researchers, quality assurance officers, student representatives, undergraduate and graduate
students, and external partners. Several academic staff and students from abroad took part in
the interviews. The first meeting day focused on fact finding, while on the second day the team
held two-hour round-table discussions with a cross-section of university representatives
around two themes: governance/management/leadership, and teaching/learning/research,
both with attention to outreach to society and internationalisation.
The evaluation team consisted of:
Jürgen Kohler, Professor of Law, former Rector, University of Greifswald, Germany, team
chair
Melanie Gut, student, Master of Science in Interdisciplinary Science–Biology and
Chemistry, ETH Zürich, Switzerland
Ivan Ostrovsky, Professor of Analytical Chemistry/Hyphenated Techniques, Vice-Rector
for Development, Comenius University, Slovak Republic
Christina Rozsnyai, Programme Officer for Foreign Affairs, Hungarian Accreditation
Committee, team coordinator
The team thanks Rector Luis Reto, Vice-Rector Antonio Caetano, and Director Anna Sampaio
for their organisation of the evaluation and their hospitality, and the staff and students at
ISCTE-IUL for the open and informative discussions in the interviews during the team’s site visit.
The visit provided the team with both clarification on the issues of its inquiry and the
Institutional Evaluation Programme/ ISCTE–IUL/ August 2016
6
impression of a collegial atmosphere that drives the quality culture embraced by all members
of the university.
2. General impressions
During the site visit, the team gained the overall impression that ISCTE-IUL has been effective
in making its mark as a successful, modern university with a recognised brand.
The ISCTE-IUL community shows a strong sense of ownership that, together with a well-
developed quality assurance system, results in a quality culture that has become an integral
part of its everyday life. Quality assurance is worked out in great detail, supported by know-
how at the technical level, and run in a collegial style.
The interviewees with whom the team spoke, across all levels, appeared to be well-qualified
and committed. An entrepreneurial approach and drive for innovation are at the core of the
community. The university explores niches in the higher education market and ventures into
new areas. This approach is also an indicator for ISCTE-IUL’s endeavour to foster its links with
society. The establishment and reinforcement of the foundation status, sustainability via
steady own income and investment, the expansion into overseas teaching opportunities as well
as taking on new educational fields, such as hospitality and tourism, are examples of good
practice on an international scale.
The team commends ISCTE-IUL for specific achievements in response to the 2013
recommendations by IEP. These include the actions taken to stimulate timely payment of
tuition fees, to take steps in reorganising research centres, to raise the ratio of foreign students
on campus to 20%, and to proceed in the development and integration of the ICT network. The
team recognises that the culture of discussion takes time but strengthens the sense of
ownership and is likely to ensure long-term endorsement of changes.
The team also notes that ISCTE-IUL faces possible constraints. Among these, the emphasis on
costs rather than results in the national legislative and financing framework is a core issue.
Another key obstacle must be seen in the processes concerning hiring and promoting academic
staff, which leaves little room at the central and department level for selecting incoming staff
who would share the university’s philosophy. This is also true regarding the appointment of
existing staff to higher levels or to raise their income, even when they have met the qualitative
targets set for promotion. This problem forces the university to seek other ways of incentivising
staff. ISCTE-IUL has responded with various measures such as sabbaticals for academic staff
and – in as much as budgetary restrictions do not pose obstacles – reductions in teaching load
to balance research time. The regulated governance structure is another case in point, since it
leads to redundancies with overlapping functions in multiple committees. The team recognised,
however, that the Portuguese culture of discussion is a point to consider when re-evaluating
the governance structure.
Institutional Evaluation Programme/ ISCTE–IUL/ August 2016
7
3. Governance and management
3.1. Mission and Vision
The team noted ISCTE-IUL’s revised mission and vision statement, which took into
consideration the 2013 recommendation to focus on the university’s profile. The new mission
statement signals that ISCTE-IUL sees itself as a fully-fledged university with professional
standards and an applied focus, supporting multidisciplinarity and linking research with
learning and innovation. The team encourages ISCTE-IUL to consider going further at some
point to include in its mission statement other values that permeate its community, namely
internationalisation, outreach to society, and students’ personal development. The latter
translates into practical aspects, such as explicit emphasis on development of soft skills and self-
confidence, with a view to not only fostering their individual opportunities but also to becoming
a supportive member of society and placing value on democratic citizenship. That would be in
line with the four purposes of higher education set down by the Council of Europe, namely to
prepare students for democratic citizenship, employment (and, more generally, to be relevant
in practical terms, both to students and to the general public), personal development as well
as maintaining and developing a broad knowledge base. These values are currently implicit, but
if made fully explicit, they would more clearly position the ISCTE-IUL hallmark in the outside
world and also with its internal members. While the team understands that the university
considers internationalisation as “just a tool”, the team nonetheless does not see this approach
as a valid argument against including internationalisation in the mission statement, since even
the existing mission statement does list tools in its second paragraph. Another tool to be
mentioned explicitly is outreach to society, which, again is a strength of ISCTE-IUL and worthy
of standing out as a hallmark.
ISCTE-IUL’s strategic goals are to become a stronger research institution; to increase the
number of post-graduate programmes; and to establish itself as an international player by
continuing to increase the enrolment of foreign students, having sustainable franchises with
international partners, growing its number of double degrees and joint programmes, etc. An
important step in this direction has been the recent successful accreditation of the Business
School by AACSB and the accreditation of four engineering programmes by EUR-ACE.
The teaching and research profile of ISCTE-IUL as a problem-based, rather than disciplinary-
based, institution is a strength that is prevalent at the university and is to be advocated
publically. It is important that the profile fits into ISCTE-IUL’s overarching goals and hallmark
and links to its dynamic outreach to society in line with its mission.
3.2. Structures and Processes
As regards the university structures, the team notes that there is an official structure consisting
of a University Council and Senate as advisory bodies. The team recognises that the university
Institutional Evaluation Programme/ ISCTE–IUL/ August 2016
8
council is becoming obsolete. The senate may be dispensable, but it also may have a good
purpose as a top-level discussion forum with an advisory capacity. The team considers it a
rational move to have one single body at this level, as is under discussion at ISCTE-IUL. At the
same time, ISCTE-IUL should make certain that the effectiveness of such a sizeable body is
ensured in operational terms, for example, by providing such internal structures and processes
that make a sufficient degree of quality input and follow-up both of discussions and decisions
likely.
There are two decision-making bodies at ISCTE-IUL, the Management Board and the General
Council. The former is largely concerned with administrative matters, namely regarding funding,
while the latter is largely concerned with strategic decisions. The team appreciates that –
contrary to practice in other Portuguese universities – there is a student representative on the
Management Board, even if there is no legal necessity for it, and that five students sit on the
General Council, making up the maximum 15% allowed by law. The team believes also that the
monthly meetings of the rector with heads of schools, departments, councils, research units
and students is an important management tool.
On the level of the schools and departments, management structures between these result in
an opaque relationship, largely due to the fact that the structures run in parallel, rather than
being hierarchical. ISCTE-IUL is well aware of this and is in ongoing discussions at various levels.
The team understands, as noted earlier, the discussion culture in Portugal, which marks also
the operations of the schools and departments and establishes elaborate negotiation processes
that seem to be working for the time being. In this context, the scientific committees serve as
indispensable bridges between schools and related departments by means of sharing
information and expertise, which is safeguarded by the presence of the same persons in these
bodies. The team encourages ISCTE-IUL to continue its discussions. ISCTE-IUL should consider
the following points in this regard:
External partners reported that they find this structure too complex, not transparent and the
reporting lines unclear; they would like to have a clearer access to the institution. Although the
partners with whom the team spoke may not be wholly representative throughout the
community, such a voice could be harmful for ISCTE-IUL.
Moreover, from the internal perspective, the structure lends itself to simplification. Study
programmes are not necessarily aligned to departments, given that most are interdisciplinary,
spanning across departments and even schools, and are coordinated by programme directors.
Therefore, departments should not be seen as legal entities, instead the responsibility for each
programme form should shape its organisational set-up (‘form follows function’).
The team took note of the law calling for the Scientific and the Pedagogical Council at the
university level. Splitting responsibilities into teaching and learning is not ideal, in particular if
responsibilities for teaching and learning are divided between the two bodies, with the former
being responsible for structural design of programmes and the latter for more operational and
personnel-related matters of the learning and quality processes. However, the team
Institutional Evaluation Programme/ ISCTE–IUL/ August 2016
9
appreciates that ISCTE-IUL tries to mitigate the situation by having a joint chair at the schools’
commissions level. A possible future scenario, should legislation allow, would be the merging
of the two bodies to increase efficiency. The team believes, however, that students would be
constructive contributors to discussions on both scientific/research and academic/teaching-
learning issues in both these bodies. The team also learnt that organisational structures at
school and department level are not prescribed by law to the same extent. Therefore, ISCTE-
IUL might consider implementing a “streamlining policy” at the school/department level,
namely by joining the two bodies, with student representation being safeguarded.
The team appreciates that there is an institutionalised quality check linking to the Scientific
Council. Programmes are initiated on the ground level and before they reach the Council the
Curricular Analysis Commission acts as a gatekeeper and the planned programme’s quality is
scrutinised before it reaches the decision-making level.
The team notes that initial steps to push change have taken place, such as allotting certain
funds to school directors to be used autonomously. The team commends this initiative on the
rectorate level, which allows school directors to set priorities.
Constraints regarding staff hiring and promotion have been mentioned earlier, and make it
difficult to bring in academics best suited for the university’s needs. The team commends ISCTE-
IUL for its staff development activities in which it instils the university philosophy and quality
culture in staff. A review on the need for even more schooling to balance the hiring constraints
might be useful.
3.3 Strategic and Operational Planning
On the process level ISCTE-IUL has a running strategic plan as well as action plans. The team
saw an English summary of the strategic plan, which seems to extend to an extensive list of
goals but does not prioritise them. Since capacity is always limited, setting priorities could
ensure that the most important things get done.
Action plans are linked to the strategic plan and meet the SMART3 criteria; they are actual work
plans. On the third level there are implementation plans with an indicator system establishing
achievements and responsibilities. The team, therefore, commends the functioning planning
and implementation system. A key to its success is a good ICT network, which seems to be in
place and continues to be improved.
On the informal level, the team, again, appreciates the informal communication that exists at
ISCTE-IUL, such as the rector’s monthly meetings, which it considers to be an essential
management tool. In research centres in particular, there are informal ‘meet for lunch’
practices, and other discussion fora.
3Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Time-related
Institutional Evaluation Programme/ ISCTE–IUL/ August 2016
10
Finally, it is worth mentioning with respect to governance and management, the commendable
communication process with external partners. Their formal involvement takes place in the
General Council, where almost one-third are external members. External partners are also
involved outside the organisational structure, such as in programme design and teaching
activity.
4. Teaching and learning
4.1 Quality Concept and its Implementation
An overarching issue regarding teaching and learning is the shared understanding of quality
behind it. The team saw many tools, such as benchmarking and problem-based teaching, but
did not see a clear reflection on what the educational concept at ISCTE-IUL is. The team found
that there is a blend of goals: fitness for purpose, excellence, market demand. The fitness for
purpose aspect is quite strong, and there are many quality policies, and there is focus on
learning outcomes and alignment of input, competencies required, and resources needed to
accomplish intended learning outcomes. In fact, the complexity of the goals is very impressive
and extends well beyond that to which many universities in Europe aspire.
On the other hand, the team felt that the fitness of purpose, that is, a concise analytical view
of identified learning outcomes could be stronger: What constitutes employability? What is
quality with respect to personal development in terms of self-management? What really is a
‘research mind’? What do the markers, such as “employability”, “democratic citizenship” etc.
really mean when translated into competences?
In terms of profiling, ISCTE-IUL states in relation to its mission statement that it aims at
“improving the research-teaching nexus with a strong applied focus, by fostering
interdisciplinary learning, and by maximizing the interplay between entrepreneurship,
technology and innovation so as to prepare professionals able to deal effectively with the
forthcoming challenges of society ...”. Translating these aims – research in teaching,
employability and fostering students’ personal development – back into the teaching
philosophy to mark what distinguishes ISCTE-IUL from other universities would strengthen the
university’s hallmark and guide the teaching philosophy of academic staff. The team heard of
a project headed by the pro-rector examining how research is actually translated into teaching,
and what contributes to the “innovative mind”? The team commends this initiative, which is
valuable also for the Curricular Analysis Commission when it checks how the ISCTE-IUL mission
is visible and tangible in its programmes.
The team commends the university’s structures and practices supporting interdisciplinarity in
teaching. The team noted the methodical approach to programme design, whereby
programme directors lead the design and oversee the lifetime of a study programme with the
contribution of staff from various departments and schools. The well-structured, holistic
approach is implemented throughout the university. The support units, such as the Vitruvius
Institutional Evaluation Programme/ ISCTE–IUL/ August 2016
11
FabLab, also foster interdisciplinarity as well as the university’s practical orientation, focusing
on a problem-solving approach.
The team noted ISCTE-IUL’s attention to various aspects of the Bologna Process, such as fair
access and social inclusion for students; transferability of studies and openness for transversal
learning paths; transparency of the educational offer and degree content; the application of
ECTS and safeguarding recognition of learning results; and issuing the Diploma Supplement.
4.2 Quality Assurance Focus and Processes
The latest accreditation in 2014 by the national agency A3ES audited ISCTE-IUL’s internal quality
assurance system and accredited the university for a period of six years without conditions.
This status is supposed to mean that ISCTE-IUL’s ongoing programmes would not be required
to undergo separate accreditation as far as issues of incremental improvement were concerned.
New programmes have to be accredited. However, the acknowledged internal quality
assurance of programmes at ISCTE-IUL, with the programme director and staff/Curricular
Analysis Commission together with the Studies, Evaluation, Planning and Quality
Office/Scientific Council chain of scrutiny, is prepared to align them with the agency’s – and
thereby the European – standards.
As far as the internal scrutiny of ongoing programmes is concerned, operations take place
under the responsibilities of the quality committee and the scientific committee of schools.
ISCTE-IUL is advised to maintain and strengthen the role of the quality committee as a ‘robust’
gatekeeper to quality-related decisions and measures in teaching and learning. Robustness
means being operational as a professional body with expertise in the broad issues of quality in
teaching and learning, serving quality in teaching and learning before the involvement of the
scientific committee by involving academics, but also quality officers in the administration and
students.
ISCTE-IUL has a number of measures in place. The two main strands are pedagogical and
programme monitoring.
The student evaluation scheme, which is at the core of pedagogical monitoring, is carried out
mid-term and at the end of the semester, and the system allows students to make comments
and suggestions. This scheme appears to be effective. If there is any need to improve teacher
performance, there are measures in place to ensure this by discussing the matter with the
person in question or else by excluding this person from further teaching, which may be done
particularly in the case of non-permanent staff.
The ongoing review of programmes is statistic-based. Here the team suggests that ISCTE-IUL
considers a more holistic approach, not only the individual course or teacher but extending to
the entire student life-cycle, from entrance requirements to the selection process to support
systems, ICT, library service, blended and e-learning, the examination system, and learning
outcomes and attained competences, keeping in mind that a programme is not just the sum of
Institutional Evaluation Programme/ ISCTE–IUL/ August 2016
12
its tutorials but rather a matter of fit for purpose compilation in terms of coordination and
progression. The team notes, however, that systems for alumni and employer feedback
regarding the success of graduates are in place, as are measures that may be taken in case of
failure of teacher performance.
4.3 Special Issues
The team explored the question of part-time students and notes that, again, national
regulations set specific limits to the time and ECTS points for this mode of study. The team
appreciates ISCTE-IUL’s flexible approach whereby students are able to discuss attendance,
individual work and alternative examination times on a personal basis. While the team heard
from both teachers and students that class attendance is the widely accepted form of university
studies in Portugal, it also heard that many students are in employment. Therefore, the team
suggests that ISCTE-IUL continues to think about possibilities for developing blended and e-
learning methods that would allow for a more customised learning, and to reconsider its
compulsory attendance policy for courses. Given the cost of blended and e-learning provisions,
they could be developed in conjunction with partner universities or through joint programmes.
5. Research
The team supports the focus of ISCTE-IUL on research and notes the five priorities regarding
research carried over into the new Strategic Plan 2014-2020.The team also notes the efforts
made in the past three years. ISCTE-IUL focuses on applied research in line with its mission and
considers research in a holistic way with strong links to social partners and services.
ISCTE-IUL has a number of incentives for its staff to conduct research, such as the reduction of
teaching load to increase research time; an award scheme with money channelled back into
research; the dedicated staff for the research support office planned for 2016; financial support
in all schools for conference attendance; the acquisition of literature or the submission of
publications, to name a few. However, the team noticed that in reality the concept of teaching
time reduction is difficult to implement due to shortage in funding for the teaching staff needed
to compensate such reductions. This leads to some frustration amongst academic staff. The
team thus recommends to consider modalities to facilitate the implementation of the scheme.
The team was impressed by the effort that goes into increasing the standing of ISCTE-IUL in
international ranking which allows researchers to focus on desirable indicators for maximum
results.
Academic staff and researchers at ISCTE-IUL participate in a number of national research
centres, which are rated and funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology.
For the university’s own research centres a monitoring scheme is in place and seems to be
functioning well. Research units produce annual strategic plans, and achievement is monitored
by scientific advisory committees. Each research centre has an international advisory board,
which is especially commendable.
Institutional Evaluation Programme/ ISCTE–IUL/ August 2016
13
6. Service to society
One of the strands in the mission of ISCTE-IUL is its “applied focus ... [to be achieved] by
maximizing the interplay between entrepreneurship, technology and innovation ...”, which also
constitutes the third axis of its strategic plan.
ISCTE-IUL has set up four subsidiaries in order to optimise service to the community. INDEG-
IUL provides executive post-graduate courses geared toward private companies and has also
been launching in-company training courses since 2013.
AUDAX-IUL organises “entrepreneurship the ISCTE-IUL way”, including life-long learning, and is
an incubator for some 25 companies. To quote from ISCTE-IUL’s 2013 self-evaluation report, it
is “targeting young people from high school and young professionals to poorer populations in
articulation with local governments. It was the first entrepreneurship centre to be set up at a
Portuguese university”.
The two youngest organisations are Global-IUL, which conducts consulting projects, and IPPS-
IUL, the Institute for Public and Social Policies, which provides post-graduate training for the
public and non-profit sectors.
In almost all the interviews during the site visit the team heard about various forms of
interaction between ISCTE-IUL and companies and local government, for example, in urban
planning projects. The team commends ISCTE-IUL for its social responsibility and strongly
supports its strategic objective to strengthen outreach, for both its own value and for securing
revenue. Moreover, these collaborations are of mutual benefit for companies and society, and
for ISCTE-IUL, for instance in securing internships for students at all levels of study and in
identifying enterprising students as future staff.
The essential message that the team heard in the interview with ISCTE-IUL’s social partners was
that the university listens to their needs with an open mind, which was succinctly coined as
“lack of arrogance”, by one of the partners. In another interview, the head of one entity
underlined that services are tailored to the request of the customer, and not vice-versa to the
profile of the university’s academic staff. This kind of openness to the customer is a clear
trademark of ISCTE-IUL and it would benefit from emphasising this approach in its marketing.
7. Internationalisation
As noted, internationalisation permeates ISCTE-IUL’s full range of activities as set down in its
strategic plan: teaching, research, knowledge transfer, as well as resource management and
quality.
In 2012, 13% of students at ISCTE-IUL were foreign; by 2016 this proportion has reached 20%.
Three years ago only some courses were taught in English, whereas today, according to the
self-evaluation report, “one undergraduate, eleven masters’ [programmes] and seven PhDs,
which account for 220 curricular units” are taught in English. The team also heard of double or
Institutional Evaluation Programme/ ISCTE–IUL/ August 2016
14
multiple degree and joint programmes with foreign partners. The Handbook for Prospective
International Students is informative, and local support for incoming students from abroad via
a “buddy system” is well developed. A policy for recognising study abroad credits is in place.
ISCTE-IUL also has partners in study programmes in several, mainly Portuguese-speaking,
countries, but China has also been a strong market for the university in the past years and these
programmes have been reinforced.
In research and knowledge transfer, ISCTE-IUL is involved in numerous international projects
listed in its self-evaluation report and website, and has contacts and collaborations the world
over, which the team also heard in many interviews. The international recognition of research,
especially in publications, has been mentioned above. The mobility of staff is another aspect of
internationalisation that ISCTE-IUL actively promotes.
The need to reinforce ISCTE-IUL’s mission by communicating its commitment to
internationalisation has been mentioned. The team would like to note two additional points
concerning internationalisation. Firstly, that expansion into foreign countries needs to be
backed by a sound business plan, which ISCTE-IUL may have but which the team did not explore.
Secondly, ISCTE-IUL should take care of the quality assurance of its international activities in a
holistic way, and not only by way of the internationally required programme accreditation.
Moreover, ISCTE-IUL should make sure to continuously track the academic, institutional and
financial success and viability of their international programmes, both collaborative and
franchised.
8. Quality assurance
The recognition by the national accreditation agency A3ES of ISCTE-IUL’s internal quality
assurance system has been mentioned earlier but is also relevant to this section, as are the
initiatives of ISCTE-IUL to acquire international quality evaluation. Beyond the AACSB
accreditation of the Business School and four engineering programmes by EUR-ACE, there are
the ISO certification of some services and the 2013 IEP evaluation and current follow-up
evaluation.
The team saw an extensive quality assurance manual in Portuguese and English. A hierarchy of
commissions ensure the functioning of the quality assurance system, from quality strategy to
the technical management of the implementation. The team was assured that the quality loop,
from analysis to implementation, to feedback and improvement is conducted on an ongoing
basis. In fact, the team saw a quality culture and the philosophy of quality enhancement, which
both consist of the presence of adequate concepts and tools as ‘hard factors’ and of a mind-
set to be described as an enhancement culture based on openness and service approach as
‘soft factors’. The members of the community of ISCTE-IUL live by these factors which are
exemplary both in their technical refinement and, as it appears, in their broad acceptance in
the institution.
Institutional Evaluation Programme/ ISCTE–IUL/ August 2016
15
9. Conclusions
ISCTE-IUL is a well-managed, forward-looking university with a staff and students who work
together in a collegiate atmosphere and with a shared mind for quality and ongoing
enhancement. The follow-up review has confirmed that ISCTE-IUL continues to identify its
strengths and weaknesses and to apply management skills and dedication to move forward.
The team commends the activities of ISCTE-IUL and as such the recommendations provided in
this report and summarised below are not issues that require urgent attention, but rather some
suggestions for further development which could help ISCTE-IUL in steering towards its goals.
Summary of recommendations
1. The team encourages ISCTE-IUL to go further in its mission statement to include other
values that permeate its community, namely internationalisation, outreach to society,
and students’ personal development, such as explicit emphasis on development of soft
skills and self-confidence, with a view to not only fostering their individual
opportunities but also to becoming a supportive member of society and placing value
on democratic citizenship.
2. The team considers it a rational move to have one single advisory body with the
merging of the University Council and the Senate, but the desired effectiveness of such
a sizeable body needs to be ensured in operational terms, for example, by providing
such internal structures and processes that make a sufficient degree of quality input
and follow-up both of discussions and decisions likely.
3. The team encourages ISCTE-IUL to continue its discussions on the restructuring of
departments/schools under consideration of their fitness for purpose and departments
should not be seen as legal entities; instead the programme responsibilities should
shape its organisational set-up.
4. ISCTE-IUL might consider including students in both the scientific and pedagogic
committees at the school/department level and even joining the two bodies.
5. If the full strategic plan of the university does not set priorities, ISCTE-IUL should
consider defining these in order to ensure that the most important things get done.
6. ISCTE-IUL might start discussions on what constitutes fitness of purpose, that is, a
concise analytical view of identified learning outcomes in teaching could be stronger.
7. ISCTE-IUL is advised to maintain and strengthen the role of the quality committee as a
‘robust’ gatekeeper to quality-related decisions and measures in teaching and learning.
8. The team suggests that ISCTE-IUL considers a more holistic approach to evaluating
ongoing programmes, not only the individual course or teacher but extending to the
entire student life-cycle, from entrance requirements to the selection process to
support systems, ICT, library service, blended and e-learning, the examination system,
Institutional Evaluation Programme/ ISCTE–IUL/ August 2016
16
and learning outcomes and attained competences, keeping in mind that a programme
is not just the sum of its tutorials but rather a matter of fit for purpose compilation in
terms of coordination and progression.
9. The team suggests that ISCTE-IUL continues to think about possibilities for developing
blended and e-learning methods and reconsiders the compulsory attendance policy of
the courses that would allow for a more customised learning process and facilitate part
time studying.
10. Openness to the customer, especially in its subsidiary organisations, is a clear
trademark of ISCTE-IUL and it would benefit from underlining this approach in its
marketing.
11. ISCTE-IUL should take care of the quality assurance of its international activities in a
holistic way, and not only by way of the internationally required programme
accreditation.
12. ISCTE-IUL should make sure to continuously track the academic, institutional and
financial success and viability of its international programmes, both collaborative and
franchised.